Court : Patna
Navin Sinha, J.1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for opposite party No. 2, in both the applications.2. The petitioner in Cr. Misc. No. 21703 of 2003 would be the husband while petitioners in 35584 of 2003 would be his family members. The opposite party No. 2 in both the applications would be the wife of the petitioner in Cr. Misc. 21703 of 2003.3. A complaint case would have been filed on 2.1.2003 registered as Complaint Case No. 5 of 2003 by opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called the 'complainant') under Sections 406, 379, 498A and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Pohibition Act. The allegation would be that the complainant was married on 29.4.1999. The husband and his family members would have created demands for dowry during the marriage. Even thereafter the husband would allegedly ignore the complainant for association with his sister-in-law. The complainant would have been humiliated, assaulted and demands made for a motor-cycle. Her jewellery would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
1. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of an order dated 9.7.2003 passed by Sri Durgesh Mani Tripathi, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Gopalganj in Complaint Case No.626 of 2003/ Tr.No.466 of 2003. By the said order, the learned Magistrate after being prima facie satisfied that offences under Sections 323 , 379/34 of the Indian Penal Code was made out had directed for issuance of process against the accused persons including the petitioner.2. Short fact of the case is that Opp.Party no.2 filed a complaint in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj on 21.4.2003, which was numbered as Complaint Case No. 626 of 2003 against two named accused persons including the petitioner and three unknown persons. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant was a temporary employee in M/S Sasamusa Sugar Mill. While he was on duty, he was called by a Peon o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Aftab Alam, J.1. This writ petition is filed against the judgment and order, dated June 14, 2002 passed by Munsif I, Vaishali at Hajipur in Election Case No. 61 of 2001. By the impugned judgment, the learned Munsif allowed the election petition filed by respondent No. 5 under Section 140 of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, set aside the election of the petitioner as the Mukhiya of Rajasan Gram Panchayat, declared respondent No. 5 as the winning candidate in the election of Mukhiya and directed the respondent authorities to take the consequential measures in accordance with law.2. Election for the post of Mukhiya of Rajasan Gram Panchayat under Biddupur block in the district of Vaishali was held in April-May, 2000. There were twelve candidates in contest, including the petitioner and respondent No. 5. The polling was held on 11.4.2000 on 15 polling booths. The counting of votes commenced from 13.5.2000 and the result was announced on 18.5.2000 according to which the petitioner had go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Sachchidanand Jha, J.1. These two letters patent appeals by the interveners arise from the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 10942/98 directing the Bihar Public Service Commission (in short, 'the Commission') to re-determine the merit list of the candidates on the basis of the qualifying marks prescribed under the statutory rules and not on the basis of the resolution dated 22.12.1990. Certain interim orders were passed in the appeals, by one of which dated 2.3.2000 in LPA No. 1328/99 (disposed of earlier as not pressed) the Court had observed that the successful candidates may be appointed in accordance with law. The MJG has been filed for clarification of the term 'successful candidates'.2. The dispute relates to appointment on the post of Drug Inspector. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on 19.10.1997 an advertisement was published by the Commission inviting applications for appointment on 215 posts of Drug Inspector. On 14.8.1998 by notificatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Mridula Mishra, J.1. Common grievance of petitioners in all these writ application relate to inter changeability from super speciality to parent speciality department. Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the action of the respondents/ Department of Health and Medical Education the State of Bihar of giving ad-hoc/working arrangement promotion to doctors appointed against sanctioned post of super speciality to the posts of parent speciality namely general surgery and general medicine. Besides that the petitioners have also challenged their inter-se seniority with private respondents in their writ applications and their specific prayer is to quash such notifications by which such respondents have been promoted on ad-hoc/working professor, Professor in parent speciality, although working in super speciality department. Question of law set out in these writ petitions demonstrate that the nature of writ petitions are not confined to the adjundication of issues for dispute in between the pet...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Indu Prabha Singh, J.1. This appeal, under Sections 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code'), is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.7.2001 passed by Shri Md. Khurshid Alam, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Excise Case No. 3/22 of 1999/99 by which the appellants were convicted under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each.2. From the prosecution case it appears that Shri Prem Chand Singh (P.W. 5) the Inspector of Customs received an information about the commission of the alleged offences. The Assistant Commissioner Customs Shri R.P. Singh (P.W. 6) headed a raiding party and went to Gandhi Smarak Belbanwa, Motihari where the raiding party found two ladies coming on a rickshaw. The rai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Patna
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', in short) for quashing the First Information Report including investigation in Mufassil P.S. Case No. 13 of 2002 instituted for the offences under Sections 28 and 35 of the Arms Act, then pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari at East Champaran.2. The facts of the case in brief are that Mufassil P.S. Case No. 100 of 2001 under Arms Act was filed by petitioner No. 1, Paras Roy, against one Shankar Rai alleging therein that while he and petitioner No. 2, Rejeshwar Roy, were guarding the mango crops Shankar Rai with three others came and indulged into criminal activities and, on protest, Shankar Rai fired upon him which misfired. Shankar Rai started fleeing away but he fell down and the petitioners caught him at which he left behind country made pistol and fled away. After investigation the police filed the final report at Annexure-2, holding that the allega...
Tag this Judgment!